^650 




V 



ADDRESS 

Delivered by 

Miss Mildred Lewis Rutherford 
HISTORIAN GENERAL 

United Daughters of the 
Confederacy 



Wrongs of History Righted 



SAVANNAH, GEORGIA 

Friday, Nov. 13, 1914 






REFERENCES: 

I. Causes that led to the War between the States. 

The United States Constitution. 

The South: Constitution and Resulting Union — Dr. J. L. M. 

Curry. 
George Bancroft's United States History. 
Life of Stonewall Jackson — Henderson. 
The South in the Building of the Nation. 13 Vols. 
The Abolition Crusade — Hiliary Herbert. 

II. The Institution of Slavery in the South. 

The Old South — Thomas Nelson Page. 

Religion and Slavery — Rev. James H. McNeilly. 

The Old Virginia Gentleman- — Bagby. 

History of the United States — Percy Greg. 

The Old South and the New — Charles Morris. 

Story of the Confederates States— Derry. 

Civil History of the Confederate Government — Curry. 

III. Jefferson Davis vs. Abraham Lincoln. 
Davis: 

Memoirs of Judge Reagan. 

Higher History of the United States — H. E. Chambers. 
The History of the Confederate States Navy — Scharff. 
Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government — Jefferson Davis. 
Lincoln: 

The Life of Abraham Lincoln — Herndon. 1st ed. 
The Life of Abraham Lincoln — Herndon & Weik. 
The Life of Abraham Lincoln — Lamon. 
The Life of Abraham Lincoln — Nicolay & Hay. 

IV. Political Differences. 

Alexander Stephens in Public and Private with Letters and 

Speeches — Cleveland. 
Morse's Lincoln. 
Congressional Records. 
War of the Rebellion. 

Barnes' Popular History of the United States. 
The Confederate Veteran. 

V. Barbara Frietchie — Myth. 

Letters from Whittier and testimony of others who lived at 
that time. 

VI. Andersonville Prison and Trial of Major Wirz. 

.War of the Rebellion — Congressional Records. 
Life of Benjamin H. Hill— B. H. Hill, Jr. 
The Southern View of Andersonville — Dr. R. R. Stevenson. 
Andersonville Prison from a Prisoner's Standpoint — James 

M. Page. 
Autograph Letters from Andersonville Prisoners. 
Letters from Gen. Grant to Gen. Butler, City Point, Aug. 18, 

1864. 
Address to U. C. V. by Dr. Kerr, Corsicana, Texas. . 

VII. Cruelties in Northern Prisons. 

Constitutional View of the War between the States — Alexander 

H. Stephens. 
The Official Acts of the Confederate States. 
Letters from Alexander Stephens. 

Ulysses S. Grant. 

Jefferson Davis. 

Robert Ould. 

John E. i^Iulford. 

Ben. Butler. 
Articles in "National Intelligencer," Washington, D. C. 

By transfer 
The \ " " 



WRONGS OF HISTORY RIGHTED. 



My object this evening is not to stress the omissions of history, 
but rather to urge that some of the wrongs that have already 
entered history be righted. 

"We of the South have borne too long and too patiently the 
many misrepresentations concerning us, and we cannot afford 
to be patient longer. There is a hope that some of the omis- 
sions may enter future history, but what hope can there be 
of these misrepresentations ever being righted if we neglect 
to do it now? They have condemned us; they are condemning 
us ; and they will continue to condemn us, if we longer remain 
indifferent. Let us remember what Dr. Curry said, "If history 
as now written is accepted it will consign the South to infamy." 

"When sons and daughters of Veterans write articles for 
newspapers and magazines, condemning the principles for 
which their Confederate fathers fought, and even stand for 
a changed Constitution that will overthrow the very bulwark 
of the South — state sovereignty — it is full time for the Daugh- 
ters of the Confederacy and Veterans to become insistent that 
the truths of history shall be written, and that those truths 
shall be correctly taught in our schools and colleges. 

So long as we send our Southern boys to Harvard to be 
taught "The Essentials of American History" by Dr. Albert 
Bushnell Hart, so long may we expect them to question the 
principles for which their fathers fought. Now understand, 
I do not object to Dr. Hart, who is a scholar of renown, teach- 
ing the Harailtonian theory of the Constitution to his Northern 
boys, for that is as they should be taught, but our Southern 
boys should be sent to Southern universities to be taught the 
Jeffersonian theory of the Constitution. And so long as we 
have teachers in our educational institutions who have been 
taught by Dr. Hart, or by teachers who believe as Dr. Hart 
teaches, so long may we expect our sons and our daughters to 
be untrue to the South and the things for which the South 
stands. 

The responsibility is yours, mothers and fathers, to know the 
training your children are receiving; to know by whom taught, 
whether true or false to all we hold dear. Only in this way 
can we stem the tide of falsehoods that have crept in, and 
are still creeping into the newspapers in our homes, into the 



books in our libraries, and into the text-books that we are allow- 
ing to be used in our schools. 

I understand that in one of our leading universities of the 
South during the past year two of the professors stated in their 
classrooms that the South had never produced a great man. 
Think of it! A section which gave the author of the Bill of 
Rights, the author of the Declaration of Independence, the 
author of the United States Constitution, the author of the 
Monroe Doctrine ; a section that gave the commander of the 
forces of the Revolution, the leaders both on land and on sea 
of the "War of 1812, both leaders of the War with Mexico, the 
leaders North and South in the War between the States, and 
the men most prominent in the Spanish- American War; a sec- 
tion that gave the first President of the United States, indeed 
gave twelve presidents to the United States, as well as the 
President of the Confederate States ; a section that gave a 
Robert E. Lee, and a Stonewall Jackson; a section that gave 
an Edgar Allan Poe and a Sidney Lanier; a section that gave 
a Matthew Maury and a Crawford W. Long — yes, a section 
that gave Woodrow Wilson, the man of the hour and the man 
of the age, said to have never produced a great man ! 

Where could these men have been educated but in some anti- 
South atmosphere ! Shall such men as these be allowed to teach 
the youth of the South true history? 

My object to-night is to urge you. Daughters of the Con- 
federacy to aid in having these wrongs of history righted, and 
when I urge you to do this, I urge you to do it without bitter- 
ness or prejudice or narro^vness. As we demand truth and 
justice, that we must give. Let us be careful to rule out of our 
Southern textbooks anything that is unjust to the North, and 
justice compels me to say that wrongs to the North have at 
times entered into some of our books by Southern writers. Then, 
too, let us in our search for truth be ever ready to give authority 
for every statement we make, and require the same of others. 

While there are many misrepresentations concerning us in 
the history which antedates the sixties, yet in my limited time 
to-night I must confine these misrepresentations to the period 
which pertains to the War between the States. And, Daughters, 
I mean the War between the States. 

Ours was not a Civil War, so let us correct that wrong first. 
The United States was a Republic of Sovereign States. We were 
not a Nation until the surrender left it impossible for a state 



to secede. A civil war must be in one state between two parties 
in that state. If we aclcnowledge that ours was a Civil War, 
we acknowledge we were a Nation, or one State in 1861 and not 
a Republic of Sovereign States, and therefore had no right to 
secede. This is what the North would like us to acknowledge. 

It was not a War of Secession as some would have us to 
call it. The Southern States seceded with no thought of war. 
They simply wished to have a government where their rights, 
reserved by the Constitution, should be respected. The war 
was caused by the North attempting to coerce us back into 
the Union, contrary to the Constitution, and for no reason save 
that the. states of the South demanded their rights. If we call 
it a War of Secession we admit the seceding states brought on 
the war. 

It was not a War of Eebellion, for sovereign states cannot 
rebel, therefore secession was not rebellion. This is acknowledged 
now by all thinking men. 

It was not a War of Sections. The North did not fight the 
South, for brothers were arrayed against brothers in many 
cases. There were many men of the South who enlisted on the 
Union side. There were many men of the North who enlisted 
on the Southern side. Both North and South were contending 
for a principle and not because they hated each other. 

It was the War between the States, for the non-seceding 
States of the United States made war upon the seceding States 
of the United States to force them back into the Union. Please 
call it so, and teach it so. 

I. 

A wrong to be righted must be the Causes that led to the 
War between the States, for injustice is too often done us by 
ascribing wrong motives to our secession. 

These causes far antedate the firing on Fort Sumter, so un- 
fairly said to have begun the war. To really get at the root 
of the matter, we must go back to that Constitutional Conven- 
tion in 1787, after the Treaty of Paris had left the Colonies free, 
sovereign and independent States. 

Two political parties were formed at this Convention — the 
Federalists and Anti-Federalists. The Federalists, standing for 
a centralized government, were led by Alexander Hamilton, 
claiming that all states owed allegiance to the Federal govern- 
ment as the absolute head of the Nation. Now it was perfectly 
natural for Alexander Hamilton to take this view of the Con- 



stitution and think we were a Nation, for he was foreign born— 
a native of the West Indies. His father and mother before him 
had served a king, and while he had been sent at an early age 
to America to be educated, yet this love for and belief in mon- 
archy was an inheritance. 

The Anti-Federalists, later called Republicans, but far differ- 
ent from the anti-South party of the same name today, organ- 
ized in 1854, were led by Thomas Jefferson, standing for local 
self-government, and the right of any state to withdraw from 
the Union of States, when a right reserved to it by the Constitu- 
tion was interfered with. It was perfectly natural for Thomas 
Jefferson to have this view of the Constitution. The planta- 
tion life in the old South made, every planter a law to himself, 
and it was this that has made Southern men ever so tenacious 
of their State rights. You may say, Thomas Jefferson was in 
Paris in 1787 and not at that Constitutional Convention. That 
is true, but he had well instructed Madison, Henry, Randolph 
and Pinckney concerning the points to be stressed before any 
new document was signed by Southern States. The Constitu- 
tion was not fully adopted, you must remember, until after 
Jefferson's return. 

Climate and heredity made the two sections different from 
the very first — the northern colonies standing for trade, man- 
ufactures, and commerce; the southern colonies standing for 
agricultural pursuits and export — but so long as a balance of 
power was maintained, when voting time came, all went well. 

The question of slavery did not enter into the platform of 
the two parties at all, for all states o^\^led slaves, the right given 
by the Constitution, and they saw no harm in slavery. It is 
true the slave trade was a source of deep concern on the part 
of the majority of the states, and the southern states seemed 
really more concerned about this than the northern. Georgia 
was the first state to legislate against the slave trade ; the Caro- 
linas legislated against it as early as 1760; Virginia, in 1778, 
and in all "the old mother state" legislated against it 32 times. 
Thomas Jefferson's original draft of the Declaration of Inde- 
pendence had a protest against the slave trade, and John Adams 
of INIassachusetts, advised that it be stricken out. ^Massachusetts 
was the first state to legislate in favor of the slave trade. New 
Jersey was the last state to legislate against it, and New York 
never did legislate against it, so really Massachusetts and New 
York were carrying on the slave trade in violation of the United 
States law as late as 1860. 

6 



At a glance one may see how unjust have been the accusations 
concerning the South in regard to the question of slavery. The 
trouble really between the two political parties was caused by a 
different interpretation of the Constitution as to what rights 
were reserved to the States, and whether the Union of States 
was a Nation or a Republic. 

The invention of the cotton gin undoubtedly led to the war. 
On account of a cold climate, unfavorable to the negro 's physical 
make-up, as well as because manufacturing interests were un- 
suited to negro labor, the northern states sold their slaves, in 
large part to the southern planters. This gave free labor in 
the South, and hired labor in the North. Great prosperity came 
to the South when cotton could be so easily raised and ginned, 
and there threatened to be an over-balance of voting power by 
the slave states. Sectional jealousies were engendered and con- 
tentions then began. 

In 1803 when a Southern President and a slaveholder, Thomas 
Jefferson, secured the purchase of the Louisiana Territory, that 
large extent of acres, more than double the area of the other 
states at that time, Massachusetts was filled with alarm and 
threatened to secede and form a Northern Confederacy, and 
Josiah Quincy advised it on sectional grounds. "When Jefferson 
assured them that he was not a president of a section but the 
president of the whole country, and that he would not violate 
the Constitution by giving one section an advantage over anoth- 
er, Massachusetts' fears were quieted. 

"When in 1811 trouble arose about the United States Bank, 
the legislature of Pennsylvania agitated nullification as justi- 
fiable by the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions. Why late^* 
was Calhoun villified for his nullification views? Again, there 
was trouble in 1812 when the New England States threatened 
to form a Northern Confederacy if war with England was 
declared. The South said there would never be freedom from 
England on sea unless war was declared, and only the great 
victory at New Orleans prevented the withdrawal of the New 
England States at that time. 

Then in 1820 when Missouri asked to come in as a slave state, 
and because Missouri was cut out of the Louisiana Territory, 
Massachusetts feared too much power to slave states and again 
threatened to withdraw. Thomas, of Illinois, offered a com- 
promise measure to forbid any state above 36° 30" latitude 
holding slaves. This bill was finally amended to except Mis- 



souri. In northern histories, and southern histories have follow- 
ed their lead, it has been over and over again stated, and I have 
myself often made the same mistake, that Henry Clay was re- 
sponsible for this amendment. It worried me greatly for it 
was a direct violation of the U. S. Constitution, and a flagrant 
interference of states' rights. I hated to think a Southern man 
was responsible for it. You may imagine my delight when 
upon reading the "Life of Henry Clay" I found that he denied 
having anything to do wdth it. He was the Speaker of the 
House at the time and took no part in the debates on the floor. 
Eminent statesmen of the South felt the injustice of this com- 
promise and did not hesitate to say so. John C. Calhoun never 
w^as reconciled to it. But it was finally accepted, just for the 
sake of peace. 

In 1828 and again in 1832 and 1833 Tariff Acts were passed 
which were unjust to the South and a direct violation of the 
Constitution, because they favored one section over another. 
These Acts were such an interference with our states' rights 
that Calhoun stood for nullifying them — hence he was called 
''The Nullifier." I have never been able to understand why 
Calhoun should have been so villified when he proposed a South- 
ern Confederacy at this time and nothing was said when Mass- 
achusetts and the New England States proposed a Northern 
Confederacy. 

John C. Calhoun of South Carolina, was one of the real 
prophets of the age, for everything he w^arned us against has 
actually come true, and had we heeded him many valuable lives 
might have been saved. The ''child of secession" was really 
born in that contest between Eobert Y. Hayne of South Carolina 
and Daniel Webster of Massachusetts, over the Foot Resolutions. 

The unequal disbursement of the funds in the U. S. Treasury 
was also felt to be unjust to the South. The South was paying 
into the treasury two-thirds of all the money there; yet the 
veterans of the Revolutionary War were paid three times the 
amount in pensions in the North that they were in the South ; 
the appropriations for roads, harbors, and rivers amounted to 
five times as much for the North as the South and the money 
expended for internal improvements ten times as much ; twenty- 
three lighthouses were in the North to ten in the South, and 
eighteen custom houses in the North to one in the South. The 
sea coast of the South was 3,000 miles in extent, and that of 
the North only 900 miles, yet five harbors were in the North to 



one in the South. Under these circumstances what could the 
South expect in just legislation? 

In 18-45 when Texas asked to come into the Union as a slave 
state, Massachusetts said then she must withdraw, for that 
would give too much slave territorJ^ When war was declared 
with Mexico the North had few men comparatively to volunteer 
and when the cause was won by Southern arms the North, by 
legislation, tried to manage it so that the South should have no 
part of the acquired territory as slave territory. In 18-47 the 
Wilmot Proviso was proposed, but fortunately did not become 
a law, but it showed the tendency of the Northern mind. In 
1849 gold was discovered in California and the North wanted 
it to be a free state. By the Missouri Compromise it should 
have been half slave territory as half of the state was below 
the degree of latitude prescribed by the Compromise. Trouble 
was brewing when ''The Peacemaker," Henry Clay, proposed 
his Omnibus Bill in 1850. This included the "Five Bleeding 
"Wounds," namely: 

Let California come in as a free state. 

Let Utah and New Mexico come in free or slave as they desire. 

Let the slave trade be excluded from the District of Columbia. 

Let Texas be paid for the territory claimed by New Mexico. 

Let the Fugitive Slave Law be enforced. 

Now this virtually repealed the ]\Iissouri Compromise, but 
still it was violating States' rights. However, it was passed in 
the interest of peace. 

"While the South knew that some of these measures were 
unjust, yet to get back her slaves, for at this time 30,000 had 
been hidden from their owners, she w^as willing to adopt the 
compromise measures that grew out of this bill. j\Iany Southern 
statesmen protested against it, and it only postponed the war 
ten years. 

In 1852 "Uncle Tom's Cabin" appeared. This Avas such a 
misrepresentation of the institution of slavery in the South that 
it brought just indignation to Southern people. It was so sub- 
tly written that it made the abolition sentiment stronger at 
the North, and really had much to do in bringing on the war^ 
and much to do in keeping England, France and other European 
countries from recognizing the Southern Confederacy. The 
South felt this injustice keenly. 

Then in 1854 the Kansas-Nebraska Bill proposed by Stephen 
Douglas passed. This led to Squatter Sovereignty, another vio- 



lation of the Constitution and an interference with our states' 
rights. There is no doubt that John Brown's Raid grew out of 
this bill. The first gun fired in this raid may be said to have 
been the first gun of the War between the States, 

John Brown was "an insurrectionist, an invader of states, an 
encourager of arson, and a murderer" — and this is quoting entire- 
ly from Northern authority. I could never understand how God- 
fearing men from the pulpits in the North have said that next 
to the Son of God John Brown was the greatest of martyrs. It 
has taken all the grace of Christianity for the South to forgive 
and forget this. However, the Federal Government quickly 
punished this offender, and also decided in favor of the South 
when the Dred Scott case came to trial. So we began to take 
hope that at last the South could fall back upon her reserved 
rights and be protected. 

Another offense then came. The slave trade was being openly 
violated and no action was taken by the Federal Government 
to prevent it. It had been decided by law that the slave trade 
should cease in 1808, and yet as late as 1857 it was known that 
75 slave ships had sailed from Massachusetts ports, and between 
1859 and '60, it was known that 85 slave ships left New York, 
sent out by merchants carrying 60,000 slaves to Brazil. As late 
as 1857 the Chlotilde was sent to Mobile, Ala., with 175 slaves, 
and the following year the New York Yacht Club sent the 
Wanderer to Brunswick, Ga., with 750 slaves, and the next year 
it returned with 600 slaves and sailed up the Satilla and Savan- 
nah rivers and sold this cargo in violation of the law. An 
attempt was made by Georgia to prosecute two Georgians who 
were accused of encouraging the transaction, but they could not 
be convicted for complicity in the scheme. If the Federal Gov- 
.ernment ever punished Massachusetts and New York for violat- 
ing the law it is not so recorded. 

But the act which brought things to a crisis was the election 
of Abraham Lincoln as President of the United States, without 
■even a popular vote of the North, but by the vote of the fifteen 
states which had stood for these repeated violations of the 
Constitution and continued interferences with States' rights, and 
the states which took out the ''Personal Liberty Bills," advo- 
cating a law higher than the Constitution so that they might 
still hide our slaves. By this time (1860), 50,000 slaves had 
been hidden from us. Unfortunately the Democratic party split, 
having three candidates in the field — a warning that we must 

10 



hereafter heed — and allowed Lincoln to be elected on the small 
vote of 1,831,000, There was nothing for the South to do but 
to secede. She saw nothing but continued violation of the Con- 
stitution by the North dominated by the policy of these fifteen 
states and their candidate. How could she be blamed for 
seceding ? 

Did the Southern States secede with any thought ok war? 
No, they simply wished to peacefully withdraw and form a 
government which would respect their rights a.s reserved by 
the Constitution. It would have been a stupid thing for seven 
states to think of fighting all of the other states in the Union. 
The North had the army ; the North had the navy ; the North 
had all of the arms. The South had no arms except the small 
number of guns that Secretary Floyd had asked for, fearing 
another John Brown might arise, and those Jefferson Davis, when 
Secretary of War, had asked for to quell the Indian up-risings. 
Even then the full quota of arms which rightly belonged to the 
South had never been asked for. 

Does it not seem in reason, if the South had had a thought of 
war at this time she would have demanded her full share of 
arms and ships? The South had no materials to manufacture 
munitions of war. That is, she did not know that she had 
sulphur, saltpretre, nitre and other needful things lying undis- 
covered beneath her soil, but she knows it now ; she then had few 
manufactories; she only had one Powder Mill, that at Augusta, 
6a. ; she did not own a ship, yet her Southern men in command 
of ships, (there were 43 captains and 62 commanders in all from 
the South) when the states seceded, surrendered their commis- 
sions to the U. S. Government and came home to cast their lot 
with their states. Had they dreamed of war, they could have 
brought their ships south as they had a right to do. She did not 
have a ship-yard where a ship could even be repaired. She had 
only 9,000,000 people from which to draw an army, and 4,000,000 
of these were her slaves, while the North had over 31,000,000 
and the whole world from which to draw recruits. Think of 
war? No, she never dreamed of it. Some few of her statesmen 
feared it, but when suggested, Robert Toombs of Georgia, said 
he would willingly drink every drop of blood which would be 
shed by war. 

The South only desired to take possession of the things which 
were rightfull}- hers. Texas demanded her forts and arsenal ; 
so did Louisiana her custom house and fort; Mississippi, Ala- 

11 



bama, Florida and Georgia their forts and arsenals; but when 
South Carolina demanded Fort Sumter, to the surprise of South 
Carolina, it was refused. Governor Pickens at once sent a 
request to President Buchanan to allow the fort to be sur- 
rendered peaceably. Assurances were given that this would be, 
and yet The Star of the West was sent with 200 men and arms 
to hold the fort. The first thing that the Confederate govern- 
ment did was to send a committee of three to Washington to ask 
the peaceable surrender of Fort Sumter. They waited there three 
montlis until President Lincoln had been inaugurated and then 
made the request. He refused to see the committee, but through 
Seward, and Seward through Judge Campbell, sent to them 
assurances that ''faith with Fort Sumter would be kept." Now 
Lincoln and Seward both knew that when this message was sent, 
seven vessels filled with armed men had already sailed to gar- 
rison the fort. When time sufficient had elapsed for the vessels 
to land, then Lincoln wired Gov. Pickens that he had sent these 
men to Sumter peacefully if allowed to land, otherwise re- 
sistance would be made. Fortunately a storm prevented the 
vessels reaching the fort as soon as had been expected, so Gen. 
Beauregard telegraphed for permission to demand the surrender 
of the fort. This permission was granted by the Confederate 
government. Anderson said he must wait for orders from 
headquarters. Beauregard answered that if the fort was not 
surrendered by a certain time it would be fired upon. It was 
not surrendered, so was fired upon. The firing of the first 
shot at Fort Sumter did not bring on the war, but the act 
which made the firing necessary declared war. The call of 
President Lincoln for 75,000 troops to coerce the South, without 
Congress' consent, was a violation of the Constitution. Virginia, 
North Carolina, Tennessee and Arkansas resented this and 
quickly seceded. Missouri, Kentucky and Maryland wished to 
secede but were not allowed to vote on secession. This act of 
Lincoln calling for troops was in itself a declaration of war. 

Was secession rebellion? The very fact that President 
Davis and the leaders of the South could not be brought to trial 
disproves this. Chief Justice Chase said, "If you bring these 
leaders to trial it will condemn the North, for by the Constitu- 
tion secession is not rebellion." Wendell Phillips said, and he 
was no friend of the South, "Looking back upon the principles 
of 76 the South had a perfect right to secede." Horace Greely 
said so, Lincoln himself said so, and Daniel Webster had said so. 

12 



I wonder how many here present realize that there have been 
eight distinct secessions in the United States and very many 
threatened ones. 

1. The 13 colonies seceded from England and formed a 
Perpetual Union under the Articles of Confederation in 1776. 

2. The 13 States seceded from the Perpetual Union and 
formed a Republic of Sovereign States in 1787. 

3. Texas seceded from Mexico and became a Republic in 
1836. 

4. The Abolitionists, led by William Lloyd Garrison, seceded 
from the Constitution at Framingham, Mass., and publicly burn- 
ed it, calling it a "league with hell and covenant with death," 
the assembled multitude loudly applauding. 

5. Eleven States seceded from the Union in 1861 and formed 
a Southern Confederacy. 

6. The North seceded from the Constitution in 1861 when 
she attempted to coerce the eleven States back into the Union. 

7. Under President McKinley in 1889 the United States 
forced Cuba to secede from Spain. 

8. Under Roosevelt in 1905 the United States forced Panama 
to secede from Colombia. 

Why should all of these secessions be justifiable save the one 
by the South in 1861? 

Was the war fought to hold our slaves? Ah! how often 
have we of the South had this cast into our teeth and often by 
some of our own southern people. Yes, it is full time this wrong 
should be righted. 

Had the vote been taken in 1860 there would have been more 
votes against the abolition of slavery in the North than in the 
South. There were 318,000 slaveholders or sons of slaveholders 
in the Northern army, men who enlisted from the Border States, 
Missouri, Kentucky, Tennessee, Maryland, besides those from 
Illinois, Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Delaware. There were 
only 200,000 slaveholders in the Southern army. Only five men 
out of every one hundred owned slaves in the South. 

There were many men among the leaders of the Northern 
army who o\vned slaves themselves or were sons of slaveholders 
or had married women who owned slaves. Among these may 
be mentioned Gen. Winfield Scott, Commodore Farragut, Gen. 
George H. Thomas, Gen. Grant: Pres. Lincoln's wife came from 
a slaveholding family, and Stephen Douglas's wife was a very 
large slaveholder, while many of the leaders on the Southern 

13 



side did not own slaves. Gen. Lee had freed his. Gen. Stonewall 
Jackson never had o\\Tied one imtil husband and wife begged 
him to buy them to prevent separation. Gen. Albert Sidney 
Johnston never owned a slave, and Gen. William M. Browne, 
a member of Pres, Davis's staff, never owned a slave. No, the 
w^ar was not fought to hold slaves, but a few selfish Southern 
people may have thought so. 

Gen. Grant said, "If I thought this war was to abolish slavery, 
I would resign my commission and offer my sword to the other 
side." The North had no thought of fighting to abolish slaves, 
then why should the South be troubled on that score? Pres. 
Lincoln sent word to Gen. Butler that the war was not to be 
fought with any idea of freeing the slaves. Pres. Lincoln was 
only concerned about the extension of slavery in the new terri- 
tory, and frankly confessed to Horace Greely that if the Union 
could be preserved with slavery he would not interfere with it. 
It was the preservation of the Union he so ardently desired. 
He had no love for the negro in his heart. Don Piatt who 
stumped the state of Illinois for him in his presidential cam- 
paign in 1860 said in one of his speeches that Lincoln had no 
love for the negro, "Descended from the poor whites of the 
South he hated the negro and the negro hated him, and he was 
no more concerned for that wretched race than he was con- 
cerned for the horse he worked or the hog he killed." 

II. 

Was Slavery a crime and was the slaveholder a criminal? 
How little the people living today know^ of the institution of 
slavery as it existed in the South before the war. I long for 
the eloquence of our silver-tongued orator Benjamin H. Hill 
that I might paint the picture as I remember it. 

If the roll call were taken of the children in the South today 
they would in large numbers be found to be abolitionists, intense 
and fanatical, and in full sympathy with the Northern side. 
Why? Because from childhood they have been taught by teach- 
ers who believe this, and have been fed on such children's books 
as "The Elsie Books," Louisa Alcott's stories, and kindred ones, 
besides being alloAved to see moving picture shows of Uncle Tom's 
Cabin, Sheridan's Ride, Contest between Merrimac and Monitor, 
. and the like. Whom can you blame for this, parents, but your- 
selves ? 

Slavery was no disgrace to the owner or the 0A\Tied. From time 

14 



immemorial all civilized nations had been slaveholders. White, 
brown and black have been slaves. 

"Who was responsible for slavery in the United States? Spain 
and England. 

"What colony first owned slaves? The Jamestown colony. 

Was there any colony or state of all the thirteen which did 
not own slaves? Not one. In 1776 there were 500,000 slaves 
in America and 300,000 were in the Northern colonies. 

What was the condition of the Africans when brought to this 
country? Savage to the last degree, climbing cocoanut trees 
to get food, without thought of clothes to cover their bodies, 
lind sometimes cannibals, and all bowing down to fetishes — 
sticks and stones — as acts of worship. 

What laws became necessary when they reached this country ? 
Very rigid and in the light of present day civilization excessive- 
ly cruel. A strong argument for the civilizing power of slavery 
would be to compare these colonial laws with the laws of 1860. 

How did the Cavaliers regard slavery ? They were very thank- 
ful to have a part in such a w'onderful missionary and educa- 
tional enterprise. 

How did the Puritans regard slavery? They thanked God 
for the opportunity of bringing these benighted souls to a know- 
ledge of Jesus Christ. 

How did the Quakers regard the institution of slavery ? They 
were always opposed to the holding of any human being as prop- 
erty, although it is stated that William Penn did once own 
slaves. 

Does the Bible condemn slavery? 

It certainly does not. God gave to Abraham the most explicit 
directions Avhat he should do with his slaves bought with his 
o\Mi money, and what he should do with the ones he owned by 
right of capture. (Gen. 17). Then our Lord healed the cen- 
turion's servant and said not a word about it being a sin to 
hold him in bondage. (Matt. 8). And Paul sent Onesimus, 
the runaway slave, back to his master with apologies, but said 
nothing to Philemon about freeing him, but rather offered him- 
self to pay his master for the time Onesimus had stolen from 
him. (Phil. 1, 18). And Titus was the pastor of a slave 
church. Paul wrote to him to exhort those slaves to be obedient 
to their masters, not to answer back again, and not to steal, but 
to adorn the doctrine of God their Savior in all things. (Titus 
2 :9, 10) . See also Eph. 6 :5, 6, 7, 8. 

15 



Did the slaveholder in the South take an interest in the 
religious condition of the negro? 

He certainly did. More negroes were brought to a knowledge 
of God and their Savior under this institution of slavery in the 
South than under any other missionary enterprise in the same 
length of time. Really more were Christianized in the 246 years 
of slavery than in the more than thousand years before. 

In 1861 there were, by actual statistics, in the seceding states 
220,000 negro Baptists, 200,000 Methodists, 31,000 Presby- 
terians, 7,000 Episcopalians, and 30,000 belonging to unclass- 
ified Christian churches. 

The negro race should give thanks daily that they and their 
children are not today where their ancestors were before they 
came into bondage. 

Was the negro happy under the institution of slavery? They 
were the happiest set of people on the face of the globe, — free 
from care or thought of food, clothes, home, or religious priv- 
ileges. 

The slaveholder felt a personal responsibility in caring for 
his slaves physically, mentally, morally, and spiritually. By 
the >vay, we never called them slaves, they were our people, our 
negroes, part of our very homes. I do not remember a case of 
consumption, or I should say now tuberculosis, among the ne- 
groes in the South. I do not recall but one crazy negro in those 
days. Hospitals and asylums cannot now be built fast enough 
to accommodate them. 

I am not here to defend slavery. I would not have it back, 
if I could, but I do say I rejoice that my father was a slave- 
holder, and my grandfathers and great-grandfathers were slave- 
holders, and had a part in the greatest missionary and educa- 
tional endeavors that the world has ever known. There never 
have been such cooks, such nurses or mammies, such house- 
maids, such seamstresses, such spinners, such weavers, such wash- 
erwomen. There never have been such carpenters, blacksmiths, 
butlers, drivers, field hands, such men of all work as could be 
found on the old plantations. Aunt Nanny's cabin was a veri- 
table kindergarten where the young negroes were trained to 
sew, to spin, to card, to weave, to wash and iron, and to nurse; 
where the boys w^ere taught to shell peas, to shuck corn, to 
chum, to chop w^ood, to pick up chips, to feed pigs, to feed 
chickens, to himt turkey, duck, guinea, goose and hen eggs 
and to make fires, and to sweep the yards. 

16 



Did the negroes hate their owners, and resent bondage? I need 
only to call to mind what happened when John Brown tried to 
make them rise and murder their masters and their masters' 
children. I need only call to mind what happened when their, 
masters went to battle, leaving in absolute trust "ole Mis" and 
the children to their protection. I need only call to mind what 
happened after they were free that made Thad Stevens' Exodus 
Order necessary in order to tear them from their old owners. 
I need only call to mind the many mammies who stayed to nurse 
"Ole Marster's" children to the third and fourth generation. 

Compare the race morally to what it was then. "Ole Marster" 
never allowed his negroes to have liquor unless he gave it to them. 
Crimes now so common were never known then. While the 
negro under the present system of education may Imow more 
Latin and Greek, it does not better fit him for his life work. 
It is true the negro did not go to school under slavery, but he 
w^as allowed to be taught, if he so desired. I have in mind a 
young aunt w-ho taught three negro women every night because 
they wanted to read their Bibles. I have in mind my mother 
on the plantation surrounded every Sunday afternoon teaching 
to the negro children the same verses of Scripture, the same 
Sunday School lesson, the same hymns that she taught her o\^ti 
children. 

As in family life a child must be punished if disobedient, 
so in plantation life a negro had to be pimished if disobedient- 
Even admitting that some overseers were cruel, will the most 
exaggerated cases of cruelty compare with the burning of the 
witches at Salem or the awful conditions of the captured Afri- 
cans on the slave ships, or the fearful conditions in the sweat 
shops of Chicago and New York today? The slave was the 
property of the slaveholder and a selfish reason would have 
protected him if there had been no higher motive. 

No, the slaveholder was no criminal and slavery under the 
old regime was no crime. In all the history of the world na 
peasantry was ever better cared for, more contented or happier. 

These wrongs must be righted and the Southern slaveholder 
defended as soon as possible. 

III. 

Jefferson Davis vs. Abraham Lincoln. 

Another wrong that must be righted is this glorification of 
Abraham Lincoln which redounds to the villification of Jeffersom 
Davis. Our children are having too much of it in their text- 

17 



books, too much of it in the newspapers, too much of it from 
the pulpits. 

Had President Davis died in that cold, damp cell with 
manacles upon him, and had President Lincoln lived, Davis 
would have been the saint and Lincoln, the sinner. It is not 
fair or just because Lincoln was the martyr that attributes 
which he did not possess should be given to him and handed 
down as truthful history. 

I am perfectly willing to have President Lincoln receive the 
praise he justly deserves, for he was a remarkable man, and 
I would not detract one iota from what is his due. At the same 
time I am not willing to ascribe attributes to President Davis 
which he did not possess, for he was remarkable enough without 
them. Both men had their weaknesses and neither should be 
canonized. 

Lest I should be accused of partiality when their lives are 
placed in parallel lines, I shall only quote from the friends of 
each. Both had enemies, vindictive and prejudiced; both had 
friends, loyal and true. This contrast truthfully and faithfully 
drawn will throw much light upon unwritten history. If in- 
justice to either has been done, it has not come from any desire 
or intention on the part of the historian, for it is truth only that 
is sought. 

Jefferson Davis was born in Christian Co. Kentucky, June 
3rd, 1808. 

Abraham Lincoln was born in Hardin Co. Ky., Feb. 12, 1809. 

There was a difference of eight months in their ages; they 
were born about 100 miles apart in the same state — both men 
Kentuckians of Southern birth. 

Jefferson Davis came from a home of culture, refinement, 
luxury, and religious influence. 

Abraham Lincoln came from a home of poverty, no refine- 
ment, no culture and little religious influence. 

Jefferson Davis had every educational advantage in youth. 
His first teacher was a loving, devoted Christian mother. He 
wms then sent to an academy, then to college, then to West 
Point. His ambition was to become a great military leader. 

Abraham Lincoln lost his mother when quite young. He 
attended school for a very short time. Thomas Lincoln 's second 
wife was a very good woman and treated the lad kindly. He 
w^as sent from home at the age of nine, and then began the 
struggle for life. He did all kinds of hard work ; he split rails, 



he worked on a ferry, he clerked in a store, and had no time 
for study except at night after a hard day's work. Often no 
light by which to study save the light from the fire. His am- 
bition made him struggle on to acquire an education under the 
most adverse circumstances. His desire was to become a great 
political leader, and if possible the President of the United 
States. 

Jefferson Davis in personal appearance was tall, erect, lean, 
with features very pronounced, and determination stamped on 
every lineament. He was always well groomed, perfectly at 
ease in his manners whether in the cabin of the lowly, the home 
of the wealthy, or the White House of the Confederacy. He 
always enjoyed social life. 

Abraham Lincoln was tall, with stooping shoulders, thin and 
bony, with prominent features but with determination written 
upon every lineament. He was never well dressed, his clothes 
having the appearance of being thrown at him. He was always 
ill at ease, whether in the cabin of the lowly, the home of the 
wealthy, or the White House of the United States. He hated 
social life, if possible, avoided it. 

Jefferson Davis had little humor in his nature and resented 
a practical joke. Life was always very serious to him. He 
was dignity personified, and his soldierly bearing forbade even 
his most intimate friends getting very close to him. 

Abraham Lincoln loved jokes, indulged in them very fre- 
quently and often his jokes were none too refined. His friends 
felt very near to him and enjoyed thoroughly his humor. 

Jefferson Davis was very happy in his married life. His 
first wife was the daughter of Pres. Zachary Taylor, his second 
wife was Miss Varina Howell, the daughter of a United States 
officer. His home was in Mississippi on a large plantation, sur- 
rounded by every comfort to make his life a joy. Children 
came into the home-nest and his children were obedient, talent- 
ed and loving. Sorrow later came from the loss of two of his 
boys, but he knew the source of comfort and did not rebel. 

Abraham Lincoln's married life was not happy. He had 
three romances connected with his early days. One, Amy Kut- 
ledge, belonged to his o^^^l social circle. Had he married her 
possibly his whole life would have been changed, but unfor- 
tunately she died while attending school. His other loves were 
Mary Owens and IMary Todd. He really loved neither, but in turn 
addressed each, became engaged to both, but advised both not td 

19 



marry him, as he did not belong to their social set. It is said that 
Mary Owens jilted him which greatly mortified him, but Mary 
Todd agreed to marry him. The day, January 1, 1842, was 
appointed, the bride and attendants were waiting at the church, 
but no bridegroom appeared. It is said that his most intimate 
friends were never able to account for Lincoln's behavior upon 
this occasion. ]\Iary Todd forgave him, however, and married 
him one year later. It was a most unfortunate marriage for she 
was not suited to make him happy, and while children came 
into the home there was no real joy, for that can only come 
from a perfectly congenial atmosphere. ' He, too, lost one of 
his sons while living at Springfield, 111., and he became very 
morose and melancholy, for Herndon and Lamon both said 
Lincoln had no Christian faith to sustain him. 

Jefferson Davis was a slaveholder, and his father before him 
owned slaves. He was a kind master and his negroes were 
devoted to him. Even after they were free, when their former 
master returned home from two years' confinement in prison, 
they climbed about his carriage, calling to him affectionately, 
"Howdy, Mars Jeff, howdy. We sho is glad to see you." 
Then falling back and wiping the tears from their eyes they were 
heard to say, "Lord, don't he look bad." 

The testimony of his body servant who was with him when 
captured, if we did not have that of Judge Reagan and other 
of the cabinet members, would be sufficient to refute the awful 
falsehood of Gen. Wilson's telegram, that he was disguised in 
a woman's dress when arrested. This faithful servant said, 
"When we heard the Yankees coming we was skeered to death, 
but old Boss he walked just as straight as if he was walking the 
streets of Richmond with Lee and Jackson. He was the bravest 
man I ever saw. I was sho the Yankees was going to hang him, 
but if he ever flinched nobody ever saw him. Folks may say 
what they please, but Mars Jeff sho was brave." 

Abraham Lincoln belonged to the poor white class in the 
South, who hated the negroes and they hated them. He was 
no abolitionist, and this is from his own testimony. His wife 
came from a slave holding family but probably owned no slaves 
at the time of her marriage. 

Both men served in the Black Hawk War. Lieut. Da^ds 
mustered into service Capt. Abraham Lincoln of the militia. 
Neither distinguished himself in any way during this war. 
Davis later entered the Llexican War and won great renown. 

20 



At Monterey he was wounded, at Buena Vista he was a hero, 
and later led the troops into ]\Iexico City with great bravery. 
In his military life he was known as a fine disciplinarian, and 
while his soldiers feared him and dared not disobey him, they 
thoroughly respected him. 

Jefferson Davis ran for the legislature and was defeated, 
afterwards was elected, became U. S. senator, then a member 
of Pres. Pierce's Cabinet, as Secretary of War. He success- 
fully reorganized the array, and was the first to suggest the 
trans-continental railway. He then became U. S. Senator under 
Pres. Buchanan, and made a very strong speech on State Sove- 
reignty. When he heard his state, Mississippi, had seceded he re- 
turned to cast in his lot with her. He was made Major General 
of the army, just what he most desired. AVhen the Provisional 
Congress of the Confederate States met at Montgomery, Ala. 
he was chosen President without opposition. He did not seek 
or desire this honor, but ever went where duty called him. 

Abraham Lincoln also ran for the legislature and was de- 
feated, but afterwards elected. He became a member of Con- 
gress in 1846. Then in 1860 was a candidate for U. S. President 
on the Republican ticket upon an anti-South platform, and 
was elected. 

President Davis served one year as President of the Confed- 
eracy, was reelected for the second term of six years and did the 
best he could combating overwhelming odds. When Gen. Lee sur- 
rendered, he was rapidly making his way to join the last division 
of the army under Kirby Smith in Texas, when he was captured 
at Irwinton, Ga., and taken prisoner to Fortress Monroe to 
await trial. A reward of $100,000 was offered for his capture. 
He was put in chains and treated with great indignities. Is it 
to be wondered at that he felled to the floor the blacksmith 
who came in to rivet the chains? He remained in prison two 
years. The United States authorities did not heed the requests 
from Judge Reagan of Texas, and Gen. Howell Cobb of Georgia, 
for an immediate trial, which they knew would exonerate him, 
or greater leniency in the treatment of him. When it was 
discovered that a trial would condemn the North, by a state- 
ment from Chief Justice Chase to this effect, he was released 
from prison under bond, and Horace Greel}^ said, "I will go 
on his bond that the North may seem to be magnanimous." 
He returned to his home at Beauvoir, Miss., a gift from a devoted 
friend and admirer Mrs. Sarah Dorsey. There he lived until 

21 



his death which occurred in New Orleans in 1889. He was 
buried in New Orleans, and his body later removed to Rich- 
mond, Va. 

As Bishop Gailor said, ' ' For twenty years he bore the obloquy 
of treason at the hands of those who were afraid to try him in 
a court of justice. For twenty years he was disfranchised and 
denied the rights of citizenship. Yet he never sued for pardon, 
nor ever asked a favor. Lonely and crushed, with a heart 
broken, his life was desolated in its prime. But through it all 
God gave him the courage of the finest manhood, and the purest 
purpose, and he died, as he lived, a Christian, praying for the 
welfare and happiness of his people. Truly he was a man 
W'ithout a country, yet he had a country in the hearts of his 
loyal Southern people — and in that country he ruled an un- 
conquered king." 

The soldiers who had not agreed with him in many things 
during the war realized later what he had borne for the South, 
and turned to him then in loving affection. At Macon, the 
last reimion that he was able to attend, some of the soldiers 
thrust into his hands an old tattered and torn battle flag. Tak- 
ing it in both hands he buried his face in its folds. Strong 
men sank to the ground and leaned on each other's shoulders 
weeping like children. They felt then, as they feel now, that 
while the cause was not lost, the principles for which they con- 
tended being admitted Constitutional by all right thinking men 
the world over, the life of their chief had been sacrificed for it, 
and their hearts were breaking. 

Abraham Lincoln was afraid to go to Washington, so said 
his friend Lamon, so intense was the feeling against him ; this 
feeling he feared more from his enemies at the North than at 
the South. Lamon, as a detective, accompanied the President 
who insisted upon going in disguise. His friends felt this was 
a cowardly thing to do and reproached him for it. He served 
four years and was reelected over McClellan for another term, 
then he was foully assassinated by John "Wilkes Booth. His 
body was carried to Springfield, 111. President Davis's first 
exclamation upon hearing the news w'as, "This is the worst 
blow that could have befallen the South." 

IV. 
Political Differences. 

There was a very striking likeness in many ways between these 

22 



two men which has led some to falsely suggest some degree of 
kinsliip between them. 

Both believed in the constitutional rights of the states. 

Both believed in the right to hold slaves by the constitution. 

Both were opposed to social and political equality for the 
negro. 

Both believed it would be disastrous to free negroes among 
their former masters. 

Both believed only in educating the negro along industrial 
lines. 

Both believed in the preservation of the Union, if possible. 

Lincoln believed and urged the colonization of the negro, 
Davis believed in the gradual emancipation of the negro. He 
thought the South was the logical home of the black man, and 
that the Southern people better understood him and were most 
ready to make excuses for his short comings. He believed that 
in the South the negro could always find sympathy, protection, 
religious instruction, work and a home. 

It has always seemed to me that when birthdays are being 
celebrated in the South the negroes had far better celebrate 
Davis's birthday than Lincoln's. He was their truest friend. 
Besides, it was Henderson's 13th Amendment after Lincoln's 
death that freed them. Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation 
did not free all the negroes and was only made to punish the 
seceding states. The negroes have been kept in such ignorance 
along these lines, and their false worship of Lincoln is pathetic. 

Did Pres. Davis have any trouble with his Cabinet? He 
certainly did. Alexander Stephens, his Vice-President, fre- 
quently disagreed with him. Some of his cabinet resigned. 
Some accused him of being imperious and partial. George Vest 
said, "Had Davis's Cabinet stood by him notwithstanding they 
did not agree with him, the Confederacy would not have failed." 
Some of Pres. Davis's generals felt that he favored pointedly 
West Point men over others better fitted to command. 

Did Lincoln have trouble with his Cabinet? He certainly 
did, Ben Wade and Henry AV. Davis issued a manifesto against 
him. Sumner, Wade, Davis, and Chase were his "malicious 
foes." Lincoln was forced to appoint Chase to the office of 
Chief Justice in order to remove him from the cabinet, for he 
was said to be "the irritating fiy in the Lincoln ointment." 
Stanton called Lincoln "a coward and a fool." Seward said 
he had " a cunning that amounted to genius." Richard Dana 

23 



said "The lack of respect for the President by his Cabinet can- 
not be concealed." He was called ''the baboon at the other 
end of the avenue, ' ' and ' ' the idiot of the White House. ' ' Had 
not Grant succeeded in gaining a victory at Vicksburg, a move- 
ment to appoint a Dictator in Lincoln's place would have gone 
into effect. liis Cabinet had lost confidence in his policy. 

Was Davis honest and true to his convictions? If by honesty 
is meant taking graft or accepting bribes, he certainly could 
never have been accused of either. If by honesty is meant 
true to any principle which he knew to be right, whether it was 
expedient or not, he most undoubtedly was honest, and true 
to his convictions. 

Was Abraham Lincoln honest and true to his convictions? 
If by being honest you mean taking graft and accepting bribes, 
he certainly was honest, and won the title of "Honest Abe." 
But if by being honest is meant true to the things he believed, 
then Lincoln was not. 

He wrote Alexander Stephens before he was inaugurated that 
the slaves Avould be as safe under his administration as they 
were under that of George Washington. Did he change his 
mind when expedient? He told a friend in Kentucky that if 
he would vote for him everj^ fugitive slave should be returned. 
Was it expedient to return any? At Peoria, 111., in 1854 he 
said, "I acknowledge the constitutional rights of the states — 
not grudgingly, but fairly and fully, and I will give them any 
legislation for reclaiming their fugitive slaves." Did he? He 
said the slaveholder had a legal and a moral right to his slaves. 
Was he honest when he violated the constitution by freeing 
some of them? 

He believed at one time it would not be constitutional to coerce 
the states, and then later he believed it would. A friend asked 
why he changed his mind. He replied, "If I allow the South 
to secede whence will come my revenue?" 

In 1848 and in 1860 Lincoln said the Southern States had a 
right to secede ; in 1861 he said they would be traitors and rebels 
if they did secede. 

No, Lincoln's convictions of right or wrong changed whenever 
expedient. 

Did President Davis ever violate the constitution? If he did 
his worst enemies have never been able to discover it. Secession 
was not a violation of the U. S. Constitution. When a President 
of the United States offered to give him the highest office in 

24 



militia military service, an honor he most desired, he refused 
because he said that was a gift from the State, not the Govern- 
ment. 

Did Lincoln ever violate the constitution? Sumner said when 
Lincoln reinforced Fort Sumter, and called for 75,000 men 
without the consent of Congress, it was the greatest breach ever 
made in the constitution and would hereafter give any president 
the liberty to declare war whenever he wished without the con- 
sent of Congress. In his inaugural address Lincoln said he had 
no intention to interfere with the slaves, for the South had a legal 
right by the constitution to hold them. Why then did he issue 
his Emancipation Proclamation to free the South 's slaves? 
Did he not violate the constitution when he sanctioned the for- 
mation of West Virginia, a new state taken from Virginia, 
without Virginia's consent? Did he not violate the constitu- 
tion when he suspended the writ of habeas corpus, May 10, 1861 
in the IMerriman case? Yes, Lincoln violated the constitution 
whenever he desired. 

Was Jefferson Davis humane? He certainly was. Wlien 
the soldiers were returning victorious from the first Battle of 
Manassas, and President Davis went out to meet them, he said 
that he commended their humane treatment of those 10,000 
prisoners of war as much as he commended their valor, great 
as it was. When he was urged to retaliate for alleged cruelties 
to our prisoners at the North, his reply was, "The inhumanity 
of the enemy to our prisoners can be no justification for a dis- 
regard by us of the rules of civilized war and Christianity." 
The Richmond Examiner said that this humane policy of the 
3 'resident would be the ruin of the Confederacy. His heart 
went out in agony over the suffering of the Andersonville pris- 
oners, and his inability to help them because of the refusal to 
exchange prisoners, and to send medicines. 

Was Abraham Lincoln humane? V7hen Alexander Stephens, 
a personal friend, went on to Washington to plead for a re- 
newal of the cartel to exchange prisoners, owing to a congested 
condition at Andersonville beyond the power of the Confederate 
government to relieve, he put this request on the score of 
humanity and friendship, not as a political measure ; the request 
was refused. When President Davis, Col. Ould and Gen. Howell 
Cobb pleaded for an exchange of prisoners at Andersonville on 
the plea of mercy, as the stockade was overcrowded and the 
water conditions bad, was the request granted? When six of 

25 



the prisoners were paroled in order to go to Washington to plead 
for exchange, was their request even given a fair hearing? 
"When Col. Ould begged that medicines which had been made 
contraband of war should be sent to their o\mi surgeons to 
use only for their own men, was not that request denied? 
When Col. Ould asked that a vessel be sent to take the sick and 
wounded hoine, because of the lack of room, lack of cooking 
vessels to prepare the food and lack of medicines to give proper 
attention, it was refused, unless 1500 men were sent to them. 
Word was returned that the vessel would be filled with well men 
to complete that number, and although this answer went in 
August it was December before the vessel was sent, and that 
after many, many had died. When Gen. Cobb sent the prisoners 
to Florida the Federal officers refused to receive them, but they 
were left there anyway. Was Sheridan's treatment of the wo- 
men and children in the Valley of the Shenandoah, or Sherman 's 
treatment of them in Atlanta, or in his March through Georgia, 
or at the burning of Columbia, or Butler's treatment of the 
women in New Orleans humane? Yet Lincoln as Commander- 
in-chief of the army allowed it and never once reproved it. No, 
Lincoln was not humane. Nevertheless this quality has been 
given to him in full measure since his martyrdom. 

Did Lincoln intend to free the slaves when war was declared? 
Certainly he did not. In his speech at Peoria, 111., he said: 

"Free them and keep them here as underlings? That would 
not better their condition. 

' ' Free them and make them socially and politically our equals ? 
My own feelings will not admit this, and I know the mass of 
whites North and South will not agree to this. We cannot make 
them our equals. 

"Free them and send them to Liberia would be my first im- 
pulse, but I know if they were landed there today they would 
perish in ten days. 

"If all earthly power were given to me I do not know what 
to do with slavery as it exists in the South today. 

"A system of gradual emancipation seems best, and we must 
not too quickly judge our brethren of the South for a seeming 
tardiness in this matter." 

Does this seem that he had the Emancipation Proclamation 
or anything like it in his mind at that time? 

Was Lincoln magnanimous? Yes, Lincoln was magnanimous, 
for there is no doubt that Grant's magnanimity to Lee was 

26 



Lincoln's thought, not Grant's. One who was present when 
Grant went to consult Lincoln about this testifies to this fact. 

Was Lincoln highly extolled by his friends Ilerndon and 
Lamon before his martyrdom? No, they saw many faults in 
their friend Lincoln which were quickly expunged from later 
editions of their books. The first copies of these books were 
rapidly destroyed. Rare copies of them are, however, still to 
be found. 

"What were Lincoln's views about colonization? 

From the time of his election as president he was striving to 
find some means of colonizing the negroes. An experiment had 
been made of sending them to Liberia, but it was a failure, and 
he wished to try another colony, hoping that would be successful. 
He sent one colony to Cow Island under Koch as overseer, but 
he proved very cruel to the negroes and they begged to return. 
He then asked for an appropriation of money from Congress 
to purchase land in Central America, but Central America re- 
fused to sell and said, "Do not send the negroes here." The 
North said, "Do not send the negroes here," It was then agreed 
that a Black Territory should be set apart for the segregation 
of the negroes in Texas, Mississippi and South Carolina — but 
Lincoln was unhappy, and in despair he asked Ben Butler's 
advice, saying, * ' If we turn 200,000 armed negroes in the South 
among their former owners from whom we have taken their 
arms, it wall inevitably lead to a race war. It c-annot be done. 
The negroes must be gotten rid of." Ben Butler said, "Why 
not send them to Panama to dig the canal?" Lincoln was de- 
lighted at the suggestion, and asked Butler to consult Seward 
at once. Only a few days later John Wilkes Booth assassinated 
Lincoln and one of his conspirators woimded Seward. What 
would have been the result had Lincoln lived cannot be estima- 
ted. The poor negroes would possibly have been sent to that 
place of yellow fever and malarial dangers to perish from the 
face of the earth, for we had no Gorgas of Alabama to study 
our sanitary laws for them at that time. 

By the way, another wrong of history should be corrected 
just here. John Wilkes Booth assassinated Lincoln because 
of no love that he had in his heart for the South, but because 
Lincoln and Seward had failed to pardon a friend of his, and 
failing in this promise that friend was hanged. Vengeance was 
vowed and vengeance was taken. There was not a true man of 
the South who would have tolerated such a deed as Lincoln's 
assassination. 

27 



"What was Lincoln's Reconstruction Policy? 

Lincoln's idea was to restore all the seceding states to their 
rights, extracting a promise that they would not secede again, 
and that they would free their slaves, because he had promised 
that in his Proclamation, then punish President Davis and the 
leaders. He would never have stood for Thad Stevens's policy, 
and Thad Stevens and his crowd knew it and rejoiced at Lincoln's 
death. 

Now when Southern young men say ^'The South as well 
as the North is ready to admit that Lincoln is the greatest of 
all Americans, " it is full time to call a halt. These young people 
have been taught to canonize Lincoln, and they must now be 
taught that Lincoln can never measure up to many of our great 
men of the South, especially to our Robert E. Lee, a man who 
in every department of life measured up to the highest stand- 
ard. Whether as son, husband, father, soldier, teacher, master, 
citizen, friend, scholar, or Christian gentleman, he presented 
the most rounded character found in all human history. Lord 
Wolseley said of him: ''He was a being apart and superior to 
all others in every way; a man with whom none I ever knew, 
and very few of whom I ever read are worthy to be compared ; 
a man who was cast in a grander mould and made of finer metal 
than all other men." 

Nor am I willing to place Lincoln ahead of our Jefferson Davis, 
Our Davis never stood for coarse jokes, never violated the Con- 
stitution, never stood for retaliation — Lincoln stood for all these. 
Nor was he even as great as many of the great men of the North. 
He cannot be compared to our Woodrow Wilson. Many times 
Lincoln had an opportunity to make peace and he made war. 
Twice our Woodrow Wilson had an opportunity to plead for 
peace and he did it. Many times Lincoln had an opportunity 
to show loving kindness to humanity and many times he failed. 
Never has there been an opportimity for our President to show 
loving kindness to those in distress that he has failed. 

V. 

Another wrong that must be righted is that Barbara Frietchie 
MYTH. Our children are reciting that poem by Whittier and 
are being ^taught that our great and good Stonew^all Jackson 
was not only discourteous but actually revengeful and cruel. 
We cannot allow this to longer remain unrighted. 

I have in my possession a copy of a letter from John G. Wliit- 
tier written in 1892 in which he acknowledges that he was 

28 



mistaken iu the name of the place where the incident took place 
and the person mentioned in the poem who waved the flag. 
He says that a U. S. soldier returning from the war told him 
the incident, and said that it happened in Maryland when Jack- 
son's troops passed through. He supposed that it took place 
in Frederick, because Jackson passed through that city, so wrote 
to the postmaster there to inquire the name of the person con- 
nected with the flag waving. The postmaster replied that he had 
never heard of the incident, but that it sounded very much like 
Barbara Frietchie, for she was a very patriotic old woman who 
had lived there at that time. The name struck Whittier as suit- 
able for a poem, so upon that authority only he wrote it. 

I have in my possession a copy of a letter from a nephew of 
Barbara Frietchie, written in 1874 saying that at the time 
Stonewall Jackson passed through Frederick, Md., he was at- 
tending to his aunt's business affairs and he knows positively 
that she was not able to leave her bed much less to mount a 
casement to wave a flag. 

I have in my possession a copy of a letter from Dr. Zacharias, 
her pastor, saying that the day before Stonewall Jackson passed 
through Frederick, he was administering, as to a dying woman, 
the last communion. He said he knew positively that Barbara 
Frietchie was not able to go to a window to wave a flag, even 
had Stonewall Jackson's men passed her home, which they did 
not. 

I have in my possession a chart giving Jackson's line of march 
in Frederick and the location of Barbara Frietchie 's home which 
was quite off the line. And yet the women of Frederick, knowing 
these facts, have erected a monument in the streets of that city 
and lately unveiled it to this falsehood in history. 

The U. D. C. Daughters of Frederick protested. The Veterans 
of the U. C. V. in Frederick protested. The Daughters and 
Veterans of Maryland protested, and the Baltimore Sun pro- 
tested, but nothing could stop it. The testimony of an old 
woman over 75 years whose memory is known to be failing has 
been taken, rather than more reliable testimony. She is a niece 
of Barbara Frietchie, and has been fed upon this story so long 
that she really believes it, when her own brother's testimony 
disproves it. There is nothing to do but to let it be branded in 
history as a monument to an untruth. The mayor of Frederick 
was asked why he allowed it to be erected, and he said, "Because 
it will bring many visitors to our city." Yes, it is a monument 

29 



unique in history, but does it honor, as a monument should, the 
memory of anyone? I know Whittier would have resented it, 
for while we didn't agree with him on the slavery question, he 
was a man of deep religious convictions and a man who abhorred 
a sham. If Barbara Frietchie was so patriotic she would not 
desire an honor that falsified facts. 

VI. 
Another wrong to be righted and one as much misunder- 
stood by some of our Southern men and women as by those of 
other sections. I refer to the misrepresentations regarding 
ANDERSoisrviLLE PRISON, and the unfair trial given to Major 
Wirz, and the attempt to implicate President Davis in the atro- 
cities, so-called, at Andersonville. 

It will be needless to rehearse all the story, especially here in 
Savannah, for it was a Savannah woman, Mrs. L. G. Young, 
who wrote the resolutions to introduce in the Georgia Conven- 
tion U. D. C. when it met in Macon, 1905, to erect a monument 
to exonerate the name of "Wirz and to defend the President of 
the Confederacy. It was Miss Penning of Columbus, Ga., who 
seconded it. It was a Savannah woman, Mrs. A. B. Hull, who 
was President of the Georgia Division when the monument was 
being erected, although it was unveiled under Miss Alice Baxter's 
administration. "We can bear testimony to endless and vile 
vituperations hurled at us for daring to defend Major Wirz and 
the Andersonville atrocities. But we knew that we were right 
and the truth of history would sustain us; and we knew the 
attacks came from ignorance of the facts in the case, so we tried 
to forgive and forget all that was said. We were sorry to stir 
up strife and bitterness, but right is might and must prevail. 

When Senator Blaine in the U. S. Senate Chamber Jan. 10, 
1876, cast reproach upon President Davis for the horrors at 
Andersonville, it was by good Providence that a member of that 
Senate was Benjamin H. Hill, the confidential adviser of Pres. 
Davis, and he knew every step that had been taken in the whole 
affair, and why it was taken. Mr. Hill answered Mr. Blaine. 

That was a most remarkable speech. It refuted every accusa- 
tion brought against Wirz or Davis, and silenced their defamers 
for a time at least. 

I wish I could give Senator Hill's speech in full, but I have 
not the time or memory to give it, and you have not the time 
to listen to it. Turning to Mr. Blaine, he said: "Mr. Blaine, 
you said Mr. Davis was the author knowingly, deliberately, guilt- 

30 



ily, and wilfully of the gigantic crime and murder at Anderson- 
ville. By what authority do you make this statement? One 
hundred and sixty witnesses were introduced during the three 
months trial of Capt. "Wirz, and not one mentioned the name of 
President Davis in connection with a single atrocity. It is true 
that two hours before Capt. Wirz's execution, parties came to 
"Wirz's confessor saying if "Wirz would implicate President Davis 
his sentence would be commuted. "What was "Wirz's reply? 
'President Davis had no connection with me as to what happened 
at Andersonville. Besides, I would not become a traitor even 
to save my life.' 

''You say, Mr. Blaine, that the food was insufficient and the 
prisoners were starved to death. The act of the Confederate Con- 
gress reads thus: 'The rations furnished prisoners of war shall 
be the same in quantity and quality as those furnished to enlisted 
men in the army of the Confederacy.' That was the law that 
Mr. Davis approved. 

"You say, Mr. Blaine, that Mr. Davis sent Gen. "Winder to 
locate a den of horrors. The official order reads thus: 'The 
location for the stockade shall be in a healthy locality, with 
plenty of pure water, with a running stream, and if possible 
with shade trees and near to grist and saw mills.' This doesn't 
sound like a den of horrors, does it?" 

He then rehearsed the efforts of Vice-President Alexander 
Stephens, Col. Kobert Quid, Gen. Howell Cobb, Capt. "Wirz, and 
others, who, time and time again interceded for the exchange of 
prisoners on any terms and finally on no terms at all, if only 
they would receive them beyond the borders of the state, and, 
how every offer was rejected. He showed how medicine, made 
contraband of war, was denied to be used for their OAvn men. 
He showed how no act of the Confederate Government was 
responsible for any horrors that existed at Andersonville, but 
that all blame must rest wholly with the war policy of the 
Federal Government. "When Gen. Grant was urged to exchange, 
his answer was, ' ' If we commence a system of exchange we will 
have to fight until the whole South is exterminated. If we hold 
those caught they are as dead men." 

VII. 

Mr. Hill continued, "You say, Mr. Blaine, that no prisoners 
in Northern prisons were ever maltreated. I do not care to 
unfold the chapters on the other side. I could produce thousands 

31 



of witnesses from my own State of Georgia alone, to refute 
this statement." 

Yes, Mr. Hill could have told of the horrors of Elmira, Kock 
Island, Fort Delaware, Camp Chase, and others. And he could 
have told how the health of Alexander Stephens, our Vice-Pres- 
dent, was injured by confinement in Fort Warren, the dampness 
bringing on an attack of rheumatism from which he never recov- 
ered, and which left him a cripple for life. He could have told 
them how our Sidney Lanier was never a well man after that 
confinement in a Northern prison. He could have told of those 
600 prisoners at Fort Delaware who were placed under the fire of 
their own men, and guarded by negro soldiers, and he could 
have told of horrors without end that were heaped upon our 
prisoners in a spirit of retaliation simply. 

Mr. Hill continued, "You say, Mr. Blaine, that President Davis 
starved and tortured 23,500 prisoners in Southern prisons. "Who, 
Mr. Blaine, starved 26,000 prisoners in Northern prisons? Mr. 
Stanton, your Secretary of War, gives these statistics, and I 
feel sure you will believe him, will you not? He says 12% of 
our men died in your prisons and only 9% of your men died 
in ours. There were far more Northern men in our prisons than 
Southern men in your prisons. Why was this per cent, of death 
greater at the North?" 

Then turning to Mr. Blaine, Senator Hill said, "No, Mr, 
Blaine, I tell you this reckless misrepresentations of the South 
must stop right here. I put you on notice that hereafter when 
you make an assertion against the South you must be prepared 
to substantiate full proof thereof." 

President Davis sent Gen. Lee under a flag of truce to urge, 
in the name of humanity, that Gen. Grant agree to an exchange 
of prisoners. The interview was not granted. 

This is Gen. Lee's testimony as expressed in a letter to a 
Philadelphia friend who wished his view of the Andersonville 
affair : 

"I offered Gen. Grant to send into his lines all of the prisoners 
within my Department (Virginia and North Carolina), provided 
he would return man for man. When I notified the Confederate 
authorities of my proposition, I was told, if accepted they would 
gladly place at my disposal every man in our Southern prisons. 
I also made this offer to the Committee of the U. S. Sanitary 
Commission — but my propositions were not accepted. — R. E. 
Lee." 

32 



I wish I had time to tell you my conversation with Dr. Kerr 
of Corsicana, Texas. He was one of our surgeons at Anderson- 
ville, and gave me some such valuable history concerning the 
conditions there. He says to his certain knowledge thirteen of 
the acts of cruelty brought against Capt. "Wirz, and accepted as 
truth, although absolute proofs were given to the contrary, took 
place when Capt. Wirz was sick in bed, and some one else in 
charge of the prisoners. Yes, Wirz was a hero and a martyr. 

Dr. Kerr says that Wirz was called hard-hearted and cruel, 
but he has seen the tears streaming down his face when in the 
hospitals watching the sufferings of those men. Not a man 
ever died that he did not see that his grave was distinctly marked 
so that his mother could come and claim that body. Did anyone 
at Northern prisons ever do that for our Southern boys' mothers? 

If the soldiers hated Wirz, as was said in the trial, why did 
they not kill him, for they had ample opportunity, as he never 
went armed. He did not even carry a pocket knife. He once 
laughingly said to Dr. Kerr that he had an old rusty pistol but 
it w^ould not shoot. 

I have in my library a copy of a set of resolutions which those 
six paroled prisoners drew up when they returned from Wash- 
ington, exonerating the Confederate authorities of all blame 
connected with the horrors of Andersonville prison life, and 
testifying to the fact that the insults received at Stanton 's hands 
were far harder to bear than anything they ever had suffered 
at Andersonville. 

I have in my library a book written by one of the prisoners 
exonerating Capt. Wirz and the Confederate authorities. I have 
in my scrap book a copy of a letter from some of the prisoners 
sent with a w^atch which they presented to Capt. Wirz as a token 
of their appreciation of his kind treatment of them. Mrs. Perrin, 
his daughter, has many testimonials of this kind. 

There was never any trouble about lack of provisions at An- 
dersonville, as has been so often stated. There was an abundant 
supply of the rations that the soldiers and prisoners needed, but 
the trouble came because of the over-crowded condition of the 
stockade. It was made for 10,000 and in four months 29,000 
were sent. There were 8,000 sick in the hospitals at one time 
and no medicines. There were not enough vessels in which the 
food could be properly prepared and served, and the Confederate 
authorities were powerless, for they did not have vessels with 
which to supply this need, nor money with which to buy them. 

33 



There were many bad men among the prisoners called "bounty 
jumpers," and they were killed by their own men, yet Capt. 
Wirz was accused of their murder. Dr. Kerr said when Capt. 
"Wirz paroled those six prisoners to send them North to plead 
for exchange, he turned to him and said, "I wish I could parole 
the last one of them." At the surrender he went to Macon, 
relying on the honor of Gen. Wilson's parole. Imagine his sur- 
prise when he was arrested. He was taken to trial, condemned 
upon suborned testimony and hanged, Nov. 6, 1865. That was 
the foulest blot in American history, and Mrs. Surratt's death 
for complicity with John Wilkes Booth may be placed beside it. 

If any one questions the truth of these facts, they can be found 
verified in the volumes called the "War of the Rebellion," in 
the Congressional Library in Washington, D. C, put there by 
the U. S. authorities. 

I have also a copy of a letter from Herman A. Braum of 
Milwaukee, Wis., who was a prisoner at Andersonville. After 
paying a tribute to Capt. Wirz and exonerating the Confederate 
authorities he says, "I believe that there is nothing so well 
calculated to strengthen the faith in popular government as the 
example given by the Confederacy during the war, its justice, 
humanity, and power. On this rests the historic fame of Jeffer- 
son Davis." 

I wish I had the time to take up some other wrongs and 
try to right them. I had intended to say something of the 
Hampton Roads Conference, the Sumner-Brooks caning, and the 
false history about the Monitor and Merrimac. But I have 
detained you too long already, and I must save these for another 
time. 

As I said before, whatever wrongs are righted, they must be 
righted in the proper spirit. 

I loiow perfectly well what the young people of today will 
say: "We are tired of hearing of these old issues, don't resurrect 
them. " We have listened to this too long from the young people, 
and we have allowed them thereby to grow up in ignorance of 
the truth regarding our history. We must not listen to them 
any longer. Justice to the living, memory of the dead, a desire 
that truth may prevail over error and falsehood makes me urgent 
to right these wrongs of history now. 

Our friends from the North do not object to the truth of 
history provided we are fair and just. We may expect them 
to disagree with us at times, but that is perfectly natural for 

34 



they have never heard of mauy of the things we claim. They, 
too, have been often wronged in our Southern liistory aud we 
must be ready to lielp them to right their wrongs also. Wliatever 
is done, let it be done; in the spirit of trntli and peace and love 
and good will. 

It is all right, as President Wilson said, to plan a Lincoln 
Highway, and it is all right to phui a Jefferson Davis Highway. 
We should honor the distijiguished men of our land. Enough is 
not done along this line. Foreign countries ])ut ns to shame. Jiut 
the Lincoln Highway Avill not obliterate the Mason and Dixon 
line, as the president snggests, for that is not a line of locality 
or mere bonndary but it is a line of heredity. Just as long as 
there is pnre Puritan blood in the veins of some and pure 
(Cavalier blood in the veins of others, there will be a difference in 
the thoughts and ways of the people. W^e cannot be alike if we 
would. This need not cause a difference that would lead to 
misunderstandings, however. God grant that never again in 
the history of our country shall jealousies, bickerings, selfish con- 
tentions and political injustice drive us apart. Todaj'- we stand, 
and desire to stand, a reunited people, all sections prosperous, 
happy, at peace and united. Yes, united in energies, in common 
interests, in r&sources, in courage and in patriotism, dependent 
the one upon the other. 

The eyes of the world are on us. There is no doubt that our 
country is the greatest, the noblest, the mightiest of all the 
countries of the globe, and we must rejoice at it and keep it so. 
We should be thankful that Ave are under a leader who stands 
for peace and whom the whole Avorld respects, a leader who has 
come to us ''for such a time as this"; a leader who knows no 
section, but who, knowing the right, dares to maintain it — a 
leader Avho has the love of the world in his heart, and would if 
he could have war to cease and peace and love and harmony 
prevail throughout the entire world. 



THE MCGREGOR CO., PRINTERS, ATHENS, GA. 



LIBRftRY OF CONGRESS 

013 763 831 gi 



^ 



\ 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 

III I II M 



013 763 831 9 • 



